1. AWARD This application purports to have been filed under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes, Ordinance, 1968. It is directed against an order passed on 9-9-1967 by the District Manager, Lahore Omnibus Service, Lahore, under the authority of the respondent i.e. the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, by which the employment of the petitioner Muhammad Tufail who was serving as a bus-conductor under the Lahore Omnibus Service, Lahore, since the date 14-11- 1966 was terminated on the ground of misconduct. In his application the petitioner has complained that a departmental enquiry into the charges against the petitioner was conducted by the Assistant Traffic Manager of the respondent, whose credentials for conducting such an enquiry have been challenged by the petitioner, on vaguely worded grounds. The petitioner has also complained that he addressed a request to that departmental enquiry officer for an opportunity of producing his defence witnesses but his request was rejected by that departmental enquiry officer.
2. It has been alleged by the petitioner that no show-cause notice was communicated to him for the purpose of obtaining his reply before the petitioner was dismissed from his employment. Another ground on which the petitioner has submitted the present application to this industrial Court is that he was dismissed by the respondent without the prior permission of this Industrial Court during the pendency of Industrial Disputes Nos. 55/ 1965, 9/ 1967, 11 / 1967, 14/1967, 28/1967 and 37/1967.
3. A reply was filed by the respondent's Representative to the petitioner's application. The respondent submitted that the petitioner Muhammad Tufail was not an office-bearer of any registered Trade Union and was also not connected with any industrial dispute. It was further stated in the respondent's reply that an independent enquiry was conducted by an Assistant Traffic Manager into the charges against the petitioner, who was given a full opportunity of defending himself. As there were no provisions of the law under which the issuance of a show-cause notice to the petitioner before the dismissal could be Road held to be essential, therefore, the petitioner was heard in person by the competent- authority. According to the respondent's reply the appeal and the revision petition subsequently addressed by the petitioner Muhammad Tufail to the respondent were both rejected after the petitioner had been gives a personal hearing by soot; the authority concerned. Furthermore, since the petitioner was not an office-bearer of any registered Trade Union, therefore it was not necessary to obtain the prior permission of this Court for dismissing the petitioner from his employment on the charge of misconduct in the form of dishonesty and insubordination not connected with any pending industrial disputes.
4. I have heard the arguments of the petitioner's Representative in' support of the petitioner's application and have also heard the counter-arguments of the respondent's Representative and have examined the relevant record minutely.
5. It has been admitted in the petitioner's own application that be is only a member of a registered Trade Union but is not officer of that Union. The petitioner has also not explicitly asserted in his application that he had not been given any charge-sheet. As a matter of fact the does not refer to the charges levelled against the petitioner in the relevant charge-sheet. There is no indication on the relevant record that the misconduct imputed by the respondent to the petitioner was in any manner connected with any industrial dispute pending at the time when the petitioner was dismissed.
6. The prior permission of this Court for dismissing the petitioner was, therefore, not necessary at all.
7. An application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, A 1968, is maintainable only if it expressly alleges that an employee has contravened the provisions of section 37 during the pendency of any proceedings before a Court. However, the petitioner' application does not disclose any grounds for be ieving that the respondent has in the present case contravened any particular provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968.
8. Keeping all the above-stated facts in view I have no option but to dismiss the application of the petitioner Muhammad Tufail. The application is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that it is neither legally nor factually maintainable under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968.